General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Supreme Court is not interpreting existing law [View all]TexasDem69
(1,994 posts)When it interprets the Constitution. Thats a simplistic notion. Try this - the Supreme Court sometimes issues a ruling that effectively bars certain laws. For instance, after Heller any law barring the private ownership of handguns by non-felons is unconstitutional. Any state can pass such a law, but a court will likely strike it down. But Heller doesnt otherwise create laws. If California wants to institute a law requiring a 10-day waiting period for handgun purchases it can do so. Heller doesnt say anything one way or the other. But I would say that 98% of Supreme Court sections are much less impactful than Dobbs, or Heller or similar cases.
At the same time, if you wanted to argue that Heller created a law that guaranteed the right to own a handgun to all non-felon citizenssubject to restrictions like waiting periods, or background checks, or trainingI would agree